Westfall v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 682

ORDER Dismissing Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Granting Plaintiff Leave to Amend. This action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants' motion for judgment on the ple adings is denied as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must do so no later than 1/15/2019. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 12/27/2018.(lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

KATHY WESTFALL,

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01403-L-NLS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND

12
13
14

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Pending before the Court in this wrongful foreclosure action is Defendants' motion

19

for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendants' replied. For

20

the reasons stated below, the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

21

Defendants' motion is denied as moot, and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend

22

jurisdictional allegations.

23

In her operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged claims for (1) violations

24

of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (“RESPA”), (2)

25

violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. (“TILA”), (3) wrongful

26

foreclosure, (4) quiet title, (5) cancellation of instruments, (6) violation of California

27

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200, et. seq. (“UCL”), and (7)

28

unjust enrichment. The third cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, only to the extent
1

1

Plaintiff sought damages, and seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment have been

2

dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. no. 38 (Order Granting in Part and Denying in

3

Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Order").)

4

As noted in the Order (Order at 3), the Court had federal question jurisdiction over

5

the first and second causes of action alleging RESPA and TILA violations, and

6

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 &

7

1367. Subsequently, Plaintiff dismissed all claims against Defendant Bank of America,

8

N.A. ("B of A"). (Docs. no. 75, 76.) Because the RESPA and TILA claims were alleged

9

only against B of A (see doc. no. 21 (first am. compl. ("FAC")) at 21, 24), no federal

10

claims remain, and the Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over any claims.

11

Although Plaintiff also alleged that the Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

12

1332, she did not allege sufficient facts regarding citizenship of each party to support that

13

assertion (see id. at 2-3), an issue that was brought to Plaintiff's attention in the Order

14

(Order at 3 n.1).

15

A district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [if it] has

16

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, ... ." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

17

see also Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

18

"While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is

19

triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the

20

Gibbs values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Id. at 1001 (referring to

21

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); internal quotation marks and

22

citations omitted.) "[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated

23

before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction

24

over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

25

350 n.7 (1988) (quoted in Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). Accordingly, the Court declines to

26

exercise federal jurisdiction over the state law claims.

27
28

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is
2

1

denied as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to

2

allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint,

3

she must do so no later than January 15, 2019.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3